Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Nadal: 10 slams
Lendl: 8 slams

Nadal has 25% more slams than Lendl.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mjau!

Spending time with your children and not being a wage slave at some soulless corporation or government bureaucracy sounds like hell. Haven't we progressed beyond the idea that it is in loving relationships with other people that we find fulfillment and meaning? Climbing the corporate ladder is essential in the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Oracle

Match Point Novak needs to be immortalized in sculpture, like Michelangelo's David. I'm sure that once he's gone to tennis Valhalla, his statue will have his stones as the focal point of attention, and tennis fans will make a meccan-like pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime, in order to rub those lucky stones, like the budda's belly.

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

Lendl made 8 finals in a row at the TMC with the best 8 players in the world. Nadal isn't making 8 finals, let alone winning a few of them.

Then the usual spiel is the TMC doesn't count cause Nadal does poorly.

It was actually 9 in a row. Never lost before the semis there in the 12 years he played. Also holds the record for most consecutive matches won indoors at 66.

Lendl has lots of amazing "consecutive" records. He holds the record for the most consecutive finals at the WTF (9), the US Open (8) and the shares the record at Roland Garros (4) and the Australian Open (3). That's 4/5 of the biggest tournaments in the world.

5 years in a row with a +90% win-percentange is also another record no one else has been able to beat. 19 slam finals speaks for itself.

You can't ignore the effect of surface homogenisation. Lendl made 7 Wimbledon semi-finals playing on fast grass. That's equal to Federer and only 1 behind Sampras. What would he have done on todays grass?

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arakasi

It was actually 9 in a row. Never lost before the semis there in the 12 years he played. Also holds the record for most consecutive matches won indoors at 66.

Lendl has lots of amazing "consecutive" records. He holds the record for the most consecutive finals at the WTF (9), the US Open (8) and the shares the record at Roland Garros (4) and the Australian Open (3). That's 4/5 of the biggest tournaments in the world.

5 years in a row with a +90% win-percentange is also another record no one else has been able to beat. 19 slam finals speaks for itself.

You can't ignore the effect of surface homogenisation. Lendl made 7 Wimbledon semi-finals playing on fast grass. That's equal to Federer and only 1 behind Sampras. What would he have done on todays grass?

But of course his records don't come anywhere near Nadal's

No, those records aren't good enough on non-homogenised surfaces.

__________________“ On Nadal bumping him on the changeover, Rosol said: "It's ok, he wanted to take my concentration; I knew he would try something".

Wilander on Dimitrov - "He has mind set on imitating Federer and yes it looks good. But he has no idea what to do on the court".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filo V.

I definitely would have preferred Gaba winning as he needs the points much more, but Jan would have beaten him anyway. I expect Hajek to destroy Machado, like 6-1 6-2.

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

You can not compare Lendl and Nadal!!! Rafa is biggest joke of Indoor tennis and Ivan won almost the same number of titles Indoor and Outdoor (probably best Indoor player of Open era). He won 30 titles (1 or 2 more or less) on Clay, Hard and Carpet and no one can could come close to that

Not to mantion that he is best player of Golden tennis era, on 4 different surfaces and with such great opponents. And work he done to win Grass Major was outstanding.. he changed his game completely (150 times on the net in AO 1/2 against Cash in 1987) but it just wasn't enough.. even with 7 1/2's and 3 finals of Wimbledon

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arakasi

You can't ignore the effect of surface homogenisation. Lendl made 7 Wimbledon semi-finals playing on fast grass. That's equal to Federer and only 1 behind Sampras. What would he have done on todays grass?

He would have done good in Wimbledon now as he played really well on Clay.

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Quote:

Originally Posted by finishingmove

interesting though

When he joined the tour Laver first played Hoad. After his loss Rod said that Hoad was the best he ever played. After losing to Rosewall the next night, he said that as good as Hoad was, Ken was even better. Hoad seemed to be a bad match up for Gonzales. Hoad was inconsistant, perhaps due to back problems. Ken usually beat Hoad just before and after Lew turned Pro, the year after Ken did. Lew was usually able to beat everyone else on the Pro Tour but he usually lost to Ken in the finals. Ken's list, which naturally does not include himself, is probably based on his results against those players. Also, Ken and Lew were close friends since childhod.

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLobb

Mention of Rosewall leads me to consider Rosewall's own personal ranking of the world's greatest ever tennis players in an interview he gave to an Italian magazine in 2010.
1)Hoad
2)Gonzales
3)Laver
4)Federer
Rosewall played against these players, apart from Federer, hundreds of times.
Gonzales himself, in an interview in 1995, rated Hoad's game as the best ever.
Laver has not committed himself to a ranking, but in early 1963 he was skunked 13-0 in a head to head tour by Hoad.

Rosewall is such a rat, he put Laver so down. Guess when he was getting his ass handed over to him everytime he must have carried a grudge. I knew he was not so simple after all. Laver had a better H2H against that RoseMug.

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Quote:

Originally Posted by thrust

When he joined the tour Laver first played Hoad. After his loss Rod said that Hoad was the best he ever played. After losing to Rosewall the next night, he said that as good as Hoad was, Ken was even better. Hoad seemed to be a bad match up for Gonzales. Hoad was inconsistant, perhaps due to back problems. Ken usually beat Hoad just before and after Lew turned Pro, the year after Ken did. Lew was usually able to beat everyone else on the Pro Tour but he usually lost to Ken in the finals. Ken's list, which naturally does not include himself, is probably based on his results against those players. Also, Ken and Lew were close friends since childhod.

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Quote:

Originally Posted by thrust

When he joined the tour Laver first played Hoad. After his loss Rod said that Hoad was the best he ever played. After losing to Rosewall the next night, he said that as good as Hoad was, Ken was even better. Hoad seemed to be a bad match up for Gonzales. Hoad was inconsistant, perhaps due to back problems. Ken usually beat Hoad just before and after Lew turned Pro, the year after Ken did. Lew was usually able to beat everyone else on the Pro Tour but he usually lost to Ken in the finals. Ken's list, which naturally does not include himself, is probably based on his results against those players. Also, Ken and Lew were close friends since childhod.

Hoad's record was uneven due to recurrent back problems.
However, when his back was holding up, his record was extraordinary.
When he started his tour against Gonzales in 1958, he took the best-of-five-sets portion of the tour 8 matches to five, and led the grinding American portion of the tour 21 to 10 before his back seized up.
In 1959, he built up a lead against Gonzales of 15 to 3 in matches before his back acted up, and Gonzales won the last ten matches, making the final score 15 to 13 for Hoad. For 1959 as a whole, Hoad finished with a 23 to 21 edge against Gonzales, and won the most prestigious tournament at Forest Hills by defeating both Gonzales and Rosewall in four set matches.
Hoad won three major pro tournaments, the 1958 Kooyong Australian Pro (defeating Gonzales in the decider), the 1959 Forest Hills (defeating Gonzales in the decider), and the 1960 Kooyong Australian Pro (defeating Rosewall in a marathon final). The Kooyong professional event was more prestigious than the White City at Sydney.
In the 1963 Australian tour against Laver, Hoad won the most important match at Kooyong at 6 to 3 in the fifth set, and the next day Laver defeated Rosewall on the same court by out-hitting him in four sets. (Rosewall dropped two matches on that tour to Laver, while Hoad went 13 to 0 against Laver.)
In 1964, when Hoad was past his peak, he won a twelve match round-robin tour of New Zealand against Laver (2nd), Rosewall (3rd), and Anderson (4th). That year Hoad's foot was injured, requiring surgery to remove a large toe.
In 1967, Hoad returned from retirement to outlast Gonzales in a marathon 3 set match at the Wimbledon Pro, in what is regarded as the best match of that famous tournament.
Even without open tennis, the calibre of opposition Hoad faced was consistently high, and more challenging than the average fare on the pro circuit today.

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash86

I'm not saying he doesn't have records - I'm saying Nadal's are more impressive - 81 wins on clay; 4 consecutive RGs; at least a Grand Slam & a Masters a year since 2005; record number of Masters; only man to win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a calendar year; only man to win same tournament 7 years in a row & a Masters at that. Factoring in who he was playing in those Masters tournaments and the fact that Federer & Djokovic have been two of his biggest rivals at the semi-finals & finals stage I think a lot of those records will look even better in retrospect.

I can see an argument for Lendl - it's all subjective after all - but just saying that focusing purely on no. of slams; no. of total tournaments etc. fails to take account of the overall impressiveness of a career which records such as this add to. I'd be interested in how many pros & journalists would put Lendl above Nadal? Nadal to me is Tier 1 with Laver; Sampras; Federer & Borg - or certainly very much on the cusp of it. One more slam, equal with Borg, cements Nadal as Tier 1. Lendl can't ever reach that level. For all those reasons to me Nadal leapfrogs Lendl - impressive though both careers are.

Lendl and Nadal are very close, clearly. Nadal I think if he gets his 11th slam this year and gets back to #1, It'll be tough for me to keep him behind Lendl, and if he wins 2 slams this year, maybe Rafa leapfrogs Borg as well into the #8 spot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by finishingmove

Nadal: 10 slams
Lendl: 8 slams

Nadal has 25% more slams than Lendl.

Not all about slams, mate. Lendl shits on Nadal in tons of other records. However, if Rafa wins the AO, I may have to reconsider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLobb

Hoad's record was uneven due to recurrent back problems.
However, when his back was holding up, his record was extraordinary.
When he started his tour against Gonzales in 1958, he took the best-of-five-sets portion of the tour 8 matches to five, and led the grinding American portion of the tour 21 to 10 before his back seized up.
In 1959, he built up a lead against Gonzales of 15 to 3 in matches before his back acted up, and Gonzales won the last ten matches, making the final score 15 to 13 for Hoad. For 1959 as a whole, Hoad finished with a 23 to 21 edge against Gonzales, and won the most prestigious tournament at Forest Hills by defeating both Gonzales and Rosewall in four set matches.
Hoad won three major pro tournaments, the 1958 Kooyong Australian Pro (defeating Gonzales in the decider), the 1959 Forest Hills (defeating Gonzales in the decider), and the 1960 Kooyong Australian Pro (defeating Rosewall in a marathon final). The Kooyong professional event was more prestigious than the White City at Sydney.
In the 1963 Australian tour against Laver, Hoad won the most important match at Kooyong at 6 to 3 in the fifth set, and the next day Laver defeated Rosewall on the same court by out-hitting him in four sets. (Rosewall dropped two matches on that tour to Laver, while Hoad went 13 to 0 against Laver.)
In 1964, when Hoad was past his peak, he won a twelve match round-robin tour of New Zealand against Laver (2nd), Rosewall (3rd), and Anderson (4th). That year Hoad's foot was injured, requiring surgery to remove a large toe.
In 1967, Hoad returned from retirement to outlast Gonzales in a marathon 3 set match at the Wimbledon Pro, in what is regarded as the best match of that famous tournament.
Even without open tennis, the calibre of opposition Hoad faced was consistently high, and more challenging than the average fare on the pro circuit today.

Hmmm, are you arguing Lew Hoad to be higher than #44 on the list?

Hoad at his best was the greatest, even according to Pancho Gonzales himself. But Hoad was too inconsistent. Back issues, yes, but also some lack of interest in the game, despite huge talent.

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Before Sampras's era, barely anyone cared about the grand slam title count. Then this whole 'only slams matter' and 'slam counting' mentality began to stick. That's why it is stupid just to look at grand slam titles won, when in the 80s and previously, the the non-slam tournaments were much more important and more lucrative (compared to the slams at the time in relative terms).

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Lendl vs. Nadal is something I gotta take a closer look at.

Slams:

Nadal- 10
Lendl- 8

Slam Finals W-L:

Nadal- 10-4 (71.4%)
Lendl- 8-11 (42.1%)

Sure, Lendl made 19 slams finals to Nadal's 14, but only won 8 to Rafa's 10. Career Grand Slam in homogenization era vs. varied 80's surfaces argument, I think those stats cancel each other out. In terms of slams won, and grand slam finals win %, Nadal takes it.

Career W-L

Nadal- 541-116 (82.3%)
Lendl- 1071-239 (81.8%)

Very close here, Lendl played nearly double the matches, but Rafa has a slightly higher win %.

Weeks at #1

Lendl- 270
Nadal- 102

This is Lendl's best argument here, not even close.

Masters 1000 (or 80's equivalent)

Lendl- 22
Nadal- 19

Close, but Lendl edges it.

Rafa's Davis cup record at 19-1 is much better than Lendl's 18-11, and Nadal also won an Olympic Gold.

Masters Cups

Lendl- 7, 5 ATP, 2 WCT
Nadal- 0, only 1 final

This is another big argument for Lendl. In fact, one could surely argue that Lendl's Masters Cup wins in 1981 and 1982 could equal slams, putting Nadal vs. Lendl at 10-10 in theory.

It is so damn close. Basically, at the end of the day, it boils down to which records you see as more impressive. Lendl's sheer number of titles, and slams, and slam finals, and this and that, over 1000 ATP wins with almost 82% winning percentage. But he never won Wimbledon and his slam finals % is shit compared to Nadal. But Lendl has way more weeks at #1! And he would destroy Nadal indoors!

Damn dude, it is close. I think another slam for Rafa would get him into the #9 spot right behind Borg, and then Rafa and Borg would have 11 slams and we'd argue them two and Budge for #7-8-9. If Rafa wins 2 slams, particularly if he gets another career slam by winning AO and USO 2012 and gets back to #1, I could put him past Don Budge up to #7 all time for Nadal, with 12 slams, gunning for Gonzales and Sampras, who each have 14 slams.

Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 tennis players of all time (Djokovic up to #31)

Good analysis - as you say it's close. For me Rafa edges it because of his Clay GOAT credentials; rivalry with Federer & Djokovic (the sheer number of matches these 3 have played at the highest level & the number of classics between them is quite something) & also the fact that he faced his biggest rivals in conquering the most challenging titles for him - Wimbledon by beating Federer - the best grass-courter of Nadal's generation; US Open & Olympics by beating Djokovic - his worst match-up on HCs. I don't think the weeks at no.1 is too bad for Rafa because his weeks at no.2 help compensate for it - without Federer his achievements whilst no.2 would have been enough to give him the no.1 ranking - it's by virtue of the greatness of the one player better than him that he couldn't get anywhere near Lendl like numbers...

The Masters is an achilles heal though - 1 final in so many appearances is not good enough. He's very beatable indoors & although seems to avoid it I do think he needs to address that towards the end of his career - it's an important tournament and would be good to try and win it.

If he gets 11 slams & particularly the 7th RG then the fight is between him & Borg. This year is quite important in terms of his overall legacy in that regard....